jie zeng, matahel ansar, zubayed rakib, seyed hajimirzaie
TRANSCRIPT
Jie Zeng, Matahel Ansar, Zubayed Rakib, Seyed HajimirzaieApplied Hydraulics, Hydrology and Hydraulics Bureau
South Florida Water Management District
Background Great deal of hydraulic designs are carried out in support of the Everglades
Restoration Projects. Reduced-scale physical models typically implemented: reliable but costly.
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD): Evaluate and optimize hydraulic performance and design of hydraulic structures in Everglades Restoration projects
Governing equations, NS :
Turbulence model: k-ε closure
qxu
j
j =∂∂
)]
([
) (
) (i
ij
i
i
je
jji
j
i Fx
gxu
xu
xuu
xtu
+−+=+∂∂ζρ
∂∂
∂∂
µ∂∂ρ
∂∂
∂ρ∂
) (
) (
)( ρε
∂∂
σµ
∂∂ρ
∂∂
∂ρ∂
−+=+ kjk
e
jj
j
Gxk
xku
xtk
)() (
) (
)(
21 ρεε∂ε∂
σµ
∂∂ερ
∂∂
∂ρε∂
ε
CGCkxx
uxt k
j
e
jj
j
−+=+
Commercial CFD-software package ANSYS FLUENT
Case Study I: S333N Spillway Design, Layout and Impact Assessment
S333 is a trapezoidal-sill reinforced concrete spillway, located at the intersection of L-29 and L67 canals
Proposed new S333N spillway to accommodate additional discharge
Objective:Determine the layout, the design, operation criteria, and impact of a newly proposed spillway
Case Study I: S333N Spillway Design, Layout and Impact Assessment
Layout Alternatives
South Alternative L-67
L-29
North Alternative L-67
L-29
S333 Capacity: 1,350 cfs, One gate 29 ft wide
S333N Proposed Capacity: 1,150 cfs, Two gates each 14 ft wideS333N Required gate opening: 2 x 6.40 ft at design HW of 9.5 ft-NGVD, and TW of 9.0 ft-NGVD)
S333N Sizing
3/13/2
3/2
gLQyc =
b
c
GhHa
Gy
−=
00
0.10
≥Gh
Case Study I: S333N Spillway Design, Layout and Impact Assessment
Flow Scenario A: 75% flow from L-67
Near Bed Velocity Contours
South alt: 1.0-2.0 ft/s North alt: 1.0-3.0 ft/s
Limestone layer: scouring not likely
Flow Scenario B: 50% flow from L-67
South alt: 1.5-3.2 ft/s North alt: 1.8-3.2 ft/s
Eddy formation downstream, Flow bias towards east bank in L-29 CanalPlace proposed S333N structure north of the existing
structure S333 at angle 25-30 degrees with S333
H=9.5 ft, T=9.0 ft
Case Study I: S333N Spillway Design, Layout and Impact Assessment
Further Analysis Extreme scenarios analysis: high flows + low tailwater
With the adjusted angle of S333N spillway, flow jets are evenly distributed at downstream, without any severe potentials of eddy formation or scouring
As conditions became extreme, flow jet downstream of the structures began to oscillates between north and south bank of L-29 Canal
H=10.5 ft, T=8.5 ft, Q333=1,350 cfs, Q333N=1,150 cfs
H=10.5 ft, T=8.5 ft, Q333=1,620 cfs, Q333N=1,380 cfs
Near Bed Velocity
Design Optimization
Split Island
S333N
S333
Split Island
Sheet Pile
S333N
S333
Flow
Flow Deflector
Add flow Deflector
S333N
S333
S333N
S333o Add split Islando Add flow deflectoro With/without sheet pile
Split Island
S333N
S333
Near Bed Flow Field
Near Bed Velocity (ft/s)
QS333N 1150 cfs, QS333 1350 cfsHW 10.5 ft, TW 8.5 ft-NGVD
Split island (1V:2H)Sheet pile
Conceptualsplit island
Split island slope (1V:2H)
Max. Near bed velocity 3 ft/s
Surface Flow Field
Split Island
S333N
S333
Surface Level Velocity (ft/s)
QS333N 1150 cfs, QS333 1350 cfsHW 10.5 ft, TW 8.5 ft-NGVD
Split island (1V:2H)Sheet pile
ConceptualSplit island
Split island Slope (1V:2H)
Case Study I: S333N Spillway Design, Layout and Impact Assessment
Design Improvements Installation of flow deflectors at both end-sills, raised by 1.5-2 ft
Flow jet travels longer and expands slower for energydissipation without the flow deflector
Deflector directs the discharge upwards, reduces near bed velocities
Near bed velocities significantlyreduce from 4 ft/s to 2.5 ft/s
Reduces riprap protectionrequirements in L-29 canal
H=10.5 ft, T=8.5 ft, Q333=1,350 cfs, Q333N=1,150 cfs
Conceptual Flow Deflector
Without Deflector
With Deflector
Case Study II: S332B and C Pump Stations Refurbishment Design
S332B/C pump stations are located south of Pump Station 331, along the L-31N canal
Construction did not adhere to District standards, meant to be temporary, Frequent repair works
Inflow canal leading to the pump is oriented at 90o with the pump: flow field biased
Objective:Apply CFD model to optimize the refurbishment of S332B/C Pump Stations for improving hydrodynamic performance
S332B Layout Alternatives
1) Move pump Downstream2) Add vanes3) Move pump further west
Alternative 2
Case Study II: S332B and C Pump Stations Refurbishment Design
1.5 ft NGVD
10 ft NGVD
3.0 ft NGVD
Hist @ 3.69 ft NGVD
ERTP @ 5.0CEPP @ 5.0SD I @4.5
CEPP @ 8.39ERTP @ 8.30SD I @8.22 Hist@ 9.88
SDI @ 7.80CEPP @ [email protected] Hist@ 9.45
S332BFlow simulation uses H=3.00 ft, T=10.0 ft NGVD
Case Study II: S332B and C Pump Stations Refurbishment Design
With VanesMesh
• Canal bottom @ -10 ft-NGVD based on as-builts
• Forebay extended 50 ft• Slope 1:10 near forebay• 4 Diesel pumps (125 cfs)• 2 Electric pumps (75 cfs)• Design Capacity 650 cfs, the
bottom elevation is -12.5 ft NGVD
Diesel pumps
Electric pumpsSlope 1:10
Without Vanes
-10 ft-NGVD
3 ft-NGVD
-12.5 ft-NGVD
1.5 ft-NGVD
Case Study II: S332B and C Pump Stations Refurbishment Design
S332B
ExistingCondition
V_mag (ft/s)
Flow biased at bend
Flow biased at intake
Case Study II: S332B and C Pump Stations Refurbishment Design
Flow vane improves pump approach flow distributions
Proposed Condition Simulation with and Without Vanes
Case Study II: S332B and C Pump Stations Refurbishment Design
Proposed Condition: Simulation with Vanes and Trash Rack
Summary
CFD successfully applied to hydraulic analysis of two water control structures in Everglades Restoration Projects
CFD is used as a complement or alternative to physical model and prototype results
CFD was systematically used to: o Evaluate structure performance and designo Predict flow behavior and operation risko Optimize structure design